"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

The way you set up the question, you are making those who attempt to answer it do the heavy lifting here, which is not really the most polite way to go about it.

Tiltbillings,

It is a straightforward question, with two reasonably short links for your perusal. I would not want to do peoples thinking for them. I am not being impolite. If you want to answer my question - great, if not -great.

In a way, I just thought it would be interesting to have a thread just on this question.

Well actually having a question to start with would help. In the absence of one however, I suspect you're referring here to the notion of "burning off kamma", but there's nothing in this Q&A for example that suggests that this is what the Goenka technique is about.

Question: It seems to me that it would take forever to eliminate the sankharas one by one.

S.N. Goenka: That would be so if one moment of equanimity meant exactly one less sankhara of the past. But in fact, awareness of sensation takes you to the deepest level of the mind and allows you to cut the roots of past conditioning. In this way, in a relatively short time, you can eliminate entire complexes of sankharas, if your awareness and equanimity are strong.

He is talking about "cut[ting] off the roots of past conditioning" (by eradicating ignorance) which is perfectly aligned with the Dhamma, and precisely what differentiates the Dhamma from the Jain understanding.... so yes, there is a difference.

In a way, I just thought it would be interesting to have a thread just on this question.

Well actually having a question to start with would help. In the absence of one however, I suspect you're referring here to the notion of "burning off kamma", but there's nothing in this Q&A for example that suggests that this is what the Goenka technique is about.

Question: It seems to me that it would take forever to eliminate the sankharas one by one.

S.N. Goenka: That would be so if one moment of equanimity meant exactly one less sankhara of the past. But in fact, awareness of sensation takes you to the deepest level of the mind and allows you to cut the roots of past conditioning. In this way, in a relatively short time, you can eliminate entire complexes of sankharas, if your awareness and equanimity are strong.

He is talking about "cut[ting] off the roots of past conditioning" (by eradicating ignorance) which is perfectly aligned with the Dhamma, and precisely what differentiates the Dhamma from the Jain understanding.... so yes, there is a difference.

Metta,Retro.

Hi Retro

"Is there any difference between Nigantha/Jain idealogy and a modern day "View", by a well known teacher? I started with this question.

Eliminating entire complexes of sankharas(kamma) sounds a lot like the jain practice to me.

Goenka's answer and teaching seems very much inline with this from the Buddha:

"And how is striving fruitful, how is exertion fruitful? There is the case where a monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not fixated on that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a [physical, verbal, or mental] fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity is exhausted."MN 101

Brizzy wrote:I would not want to do peoples thinking for them. I am not being impolite. If you want to answer my question - great, if not -great.

Do you not think it would have been more straightforward to say:

"I think Goenka's method shows similarities with Jain-Dhamma, this is my explanation for it, and here is the evidence."

Instead you start off with a loaded question, which relies on the fore drawn conclusion that Jain-Dhamma and Goenka method are identical. You posts links to a couple of sources, without once mentioning the name of the teacher/method, and ask if we can find any difference at all between them. This is tantamount to saying: "I know the truth, prove me wrong."

If you want people to have a reasoned discussion with you, then show them the courtesy they deserve.

mettaJack

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Brizzy wrote:I would not want to do peoples thinking for them. I am not being impolite. If you want to answer my question - great, if not -great.

Do you not think it would have been more straightforward to say:

"I think Goenka's method shows similarities with Jain-Dhamma, this is my explanation for it, and here is the evidence."

Instead you start off with a loaded question, which relies on the fore drawn conclusion that Jain-Dhamma and Goenka method are identical. You posts links to a couple of sources, without once mentioning the name of the teacher/method, and ask if we can find any difference at all between them. This is tantamount to saying: "I know the truth, prove me wrong."

If you want people to have a reasoned discussion with you, then show them the courtesy they deserve.

mettaJack

Well put.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

That Goenka material differs in my mind from that taught by the Nigganthas, in a very crucial point: The Nigganthas believed that kamma (or sankhara, or whatever term one may use) are burnt off / eliminated by the experiencing of ascetic pains (tapas). Buddhism also talks about eliminating these, but certainly NOT by physical asceticism (as self-mortification). Or even "burning off", but again, the metaphor of tapas as asceticism, already a pun on tapas as the sacrificial fire, is rendered in Buddhism to the fires of wisdom, a strictly mental engagement.

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

Brizzy wrote:I would not want to do peoples thinking for them. I am not being impolite. If you want to answer my question - great, if not -great.

Do you not think it would have been more straightforward to say:

"I think Goenka's method shows similarities with Jain-Dhamma, this is my explanation for it, and here is the evidence."

Instead you start off with a loaded question, which relies on the fore drawn conclusion that Jain-Dhamma and Goenka method are identical. You posts links to a couple of sources, without once mentioning the name of the teacher/method, and ask if we can find any difference at all between them. This is tantamount to saying: "I know the truth, prove me wrong."

If you want people to have a reasoned discussion with you, then show them the courtesy they deserve.

mettaJack

I dont think it was a loaded question. I asked if there was any difference. If after reading the two links people thought there was'nt, then they could say so. If people thought there was a difference then they could say so. I personally dont think there is much difference, and the Thanissaro link sums up my argument quite well, reinforced by goenkas on "take" on how kamma works. You seem very defensive or hurt "show them the courtesy they deserve." If you feel I have been rude, then I apologise."I know the truth, prove me wrong."

I dont think that in the same posting that you accuse me of not being courteous, you then go on to try & put words in my mouth, that were not said, is a bit disingenuous.

David N. Snyder wrote:Goenka's answer and teaching seems very much inline with this from the Buddha:

"And how is striving fruitful, how is exertion fruitful? There is the case where a monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not fixated on that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a [physical, verbal, or mental] fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity is exhausted."MN 101

Goenka talks about past actions rising to the surface. His concentration technique is aimed specifically to induce sensations, rather than tranquility. These sensations are to be viewed as past kammas (sankharas) to be looked upon with equanimity.(thereby eradicating kammas & not producing further kammas). This does not seem to me, quite what the Buddha is saying - it is the desire & lust that are to abandoned, past kammas are not eradicated. There is a sutta where the buddha talks of metta, being an escape from bad kamma, but even here, old kamma is not eradicated - it is simply overwhelmed by metta. I will endeavour to find the particular sutta.

"Is there any difference between Nigantha/Jain idealogy and a modern day "View", by a well known teacher? I started with this question.

Eliminating entire complexes of sankharas(kamma) sounds a lot like the jain practice to me.

Maybe Goenka doesn't talk about eliminating one sankhara at a time.

And neither does lets say Patisambhidamagga Chapter XXIII Abhisamayo

One does not abandon past defilements, one does not abandon future defilements, one does not abandon present defilements. If one does not abandon past defilements, one does not abandon future defilements, one does not abandon present defilements, then there is no development of the path, there is no realization of its fruition, there is no realization of phenomena? That is not so. There is development of the path, there is realization of its fruition, there is realization of phenomena. In what way?

Suppose there was a young tree with unborn fruit, and a man cut the root, then the unborn fruit of the tree remains unborn and do not come to be born, they remain ungenerated and do not come to be generated, they remain unarisen and do not come to be arisen, they remain unmanifest and do not come to be manifested. So too, arising is the cause, arising is the condition, for the generation of defilements. Seeing danger in arising, mind enters & launches out into non-arising. With mind entering & launching into non-arising the defilements that would be generated with arising as their condition remain unborn and do not come to be born. The potential defilements remain ungenerated and do not come to be generated, they remain unarisen and do not come to be arisen, they remain unmanifest and do not come to be manifested. So with the cessation of the cause there is cessation of suffering. Occurrence, sign, accumulation is a cause, is a condition, for the generation of defilements. Seeing danger in accumulation, mind enters & launches into non-accumulation. With mind entering & launching into non-accumulation the defilements that would be generated with accumulation as their condition remain unborn and do not come to be born. The potential defilements remain ungenerated and do not come to be generated, they remain unarisen and do not come to be arisen, they remain unmanifest and do not come to be manifested. So with the cessation of the cause there is cessation of suffering. Thus there is development of the path, there is realization of its fruition, there is realization of factors.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Brizzy wrote:Goenka talks about past actions rising to the surface. His concentration technique is aimed specifically to induce sensations, rather than tranquility.

I was never taught to induce sensations, but rather to observe their arising. Perhaps therein lies the problem.

Exactly. Buddha's problem with the Jains was that by practicing self mortification, they were just creating more kamma in the process.

i.e. if I hit you in the face with a shovel, that's an unwholesome action, which will ripen at some point for me. (For you it's your bad kamma ripening, so...you're welcome?)

But hitting my*self* in the face, whether that is the ripening of unwholesome kamma or not, is kind of pointless, because all I've done is create more unwholesome kamma by doing the action.

I believe it's that simple. Sitting in mindfulness and observing sensations, feelings, etc. isn't anything like this shovel-face-hitting-asceticism (or any kind of asceticism - same thing). The Goekna method, as far as I know, is adopted from Satipatthana - nothing ascetic in there.